Sex is binary, because there are two sizes of gametes. Sex is determined in humans by chromosomes (and is rather messy, as you note). Sex is defined by gamete size, because it’s the only common factor across so many different species. Some animals have their sex determined by the temperature while they’re developing instead of chromosomes, but we can still differentiate between males and females by gamete size.
Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs
FoxyFerengi@startrek.website 18 hours agoXO, XX, XY, XXY, XYY, XXX, XXXX, XXXY, XXYY, and others have been recorded in humans. In addition there is Swyer syndrome, Chappell syndrome, and mosaicism in which the gonadal phenotype doesn’t match the genotype. There are also events during fertilization which can cause an XX zygote to gain the SRY gene from the father. The SRY gene is what initiates male gonad development.
Sex is not binary just because there are two types of sex chromosomes. They can occur in multiple combinations and result in a spectrum of characteristics.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
pennomi@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
That’s a ridiculous definition conjured up by people trying to claim there’s only two sexes. It has effectively no practical use considering gametes on their own are useless for reproduction without an entire system of hardware surrounding them. Plus it guarantees at least three sexes - people who don’t produce gametes at all.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
You’re kind of shooting the messenger here. It’s literally how sex is defined and used in biology, I’m just letting you know.
Not producing gametes doesn’t confuse things. Nobody is born with a body organized around producing a third gamete size, or no gamete size.
Carnelian@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Nobody is born with a body organized around producing a third gamete size
You say that because you incorrectly categorize genetic variations as a failed attempt at one of two binary options. It’s circular reasoning. You’re looking for a binary to sort things into, so regardless of the underlying truth, you sort everything into it.
Like all smoking gun “binary” sex characteristics transphobes have honed in on over the years, we’re only talking about it because they arrived there from working backwards towards it. Just a few years ago all of these same talking points were “biological truth” regarding chromosomes (which you now openly concede are not reliable sex determinants)
A thorough investigation of gametes reveals that like everything else in biology that’s paired off, it’s bipolar in nature rather than binary (strongly gathered up into two categories but with outliers and exceptions).
Even ignoring gamete manifestation in all other species, which there is no reason to do other than to try and make a transphobic point, just among humans genetic variation occurs somewhat regularly. This is the basic principle that makes evolution possible, and it’s why other species have such insane gamete setups such that that gamete size cannot be used universally to determine sex.
Ah but I forget we’re still just talking humans. Evolutionary scientists reveal that the simple reason intermediate gamete sizes do not proliferate in our species is because they have historically been outcompeted. This fact could not be true if there were no bodies born with a third gamete type
An additional issue with this whole train of thought is the baseless presumption that normal biological variation precludes someone who was “supposed to be female” from producing the small gamete. It’s literally the meme we’re looking at in the OP: where the vast majority fits neatly into two categories, but if you were to try to work backwards from there and say everything must fit into those categories, you will have deprived yourself of even the most fundamental biological truths that describe our universe, and on a personal note, you will have deprived yourself of what makes biology beautiful.
pennomi@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
That’s not true, there are definitely people both without any sex organs whose body “organization” is incapable of producing any gametes. There are people who are able to produce both gametes. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALA does not make these people magically disappear. You cannot argue “well part of their body organization is invalid because of reasons”.
This is classic Dunning-Kruger shit where just because you learned a little about gametes you think you’re an expert, but there’s a huge world of exceptions out there.
meco03211@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Biology doesn’t give special consideration for humans. We’re simply animals like the rest of the animal kingdom. Within the animal kingdom there are absolutely species with more than two sexes including more than two gamete sizes.
FoxyFerengi@startrek.website 18 hours ago
I provided several examples of chromosome combinations that result in people who produce no gametes. You’ve said in several comments that no one is born with a body plan that doesnt produce gametes, and that is incorrect. I’m a biology major, and I’m in a developmental biology class right now There are several points in development that can cause a failure to develop a sexual phenotype.
I don’t know why you’re saying it’s a hard line that biologists have drawn, when science is about being able to adjust our understanding of the world when we are presented with new information
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
I didn’t say that nobody is born with a body that doesn’t produce gametes. I said nobody is born with a body organized around producing no gametes. Ask your professor about the difference.
athatet@lemmy.zip 17 hours ago
So people who produce no gametes, their bodies are unorganized?
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
Sex is defined by gamete size, because it’s the only common factor across so many different species.
Dawg this isn’t even true. What was the publishing date of the last biology book you read? I think you need to update your knowledge. The current scientific and academic consensus is that neither sex nor gender are binary.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
You unfortunately have a grossly distorted view of what the scientific consensus is. There’s a few extremists pushing for silly things, but no, sex is binary. Sex phenotypes aren’t binary, but those aren’t how sex is defined
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 12 hours ago
What’s in this for you? Why is it so important for you to believe that sex is binary, to try and convince everyone in this thread that sex is binary? How does this narrow-minded, oversimplified view that ignores modern biology serve you? And, maybe most curiously, why do you think “there’s a few extremists pushing for silly things?” What silly things? What kinds of extremists? Let’s go down this fucking rabbit hole together my dude.
It’s just so funny seeing you acknowledge all over the place that all these other characteristics of sex are not binary, except for gametes (which in reality, also aren’t binary), and that just happens to be the thing you’re pinning your definition of sex to. Like, the pieces are all there and it just looks like you’re refusing to put them all together.
davidagain@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
You so clever! How many numbers I have write with binary? Is two, no? Why fucking computer use binary if only two numbers?
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
Sarcasm works better if you respond coherently. You doing math with gametes?
davidagain@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Sir is doing biology without brain. Is much cleverer trick.
Nima@leminal.space 17 hours ago
but aren’t those fairly uncommon? I don’t think he means mutations or syndromes. I think he means the majority of humans.
athatet@lemmy.zip 17 hours ago
Uncommon like all those other elements in the universe?
Nima@leminal.space 17 hours ago
huh? no, uncommon in terms of human biology. this isn’t some political statement against those who have mutations or uncommon chromosome combos.
they exist. they’re real. they’re just not the majority. and that’s ok. they don’t have to be.
I’m not sure what that has to do with elements on the periodic table.
recked_wralph@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
they exist. they’re real. they’re just not the majority. and that’s ok. they don’t have to be.
Exactly. Just like all of the other non-hydrogen and non-helium atoms in the universe.
HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca 18 hours ago
I prefer a simpler view… leave people the fuck alone as long as they aren’t harming anybody.